Events

Members

To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Jaw's 2014 QB Rankings: Bradford #24

As far as one single position goes, it's hard to see how any other position is more important than QB on a football team. Now, is a good QB more valuable than an entire good defense? No. But what single position would you take over a good QB?

Click to expand...

My position is not that there is a single position that I would take over another. My position is that they are all of equal importance. Importance by my definition in this context meaning inherent, on the field value towards winning football games.

If you were to perform a study on any past Super Bowl champion, I would venture that you would never find a constant among teams in terms of which positions were filled by elite players, which were filled by good players, which were filled by role players, and which were filled by replacement level players (terms I use to tier, I can specify if you wish and that's too vague). The constant you would find is that every champion had these elite players somewhere, at disparate positions, and that the quantity of replacement level players was minimal.

Read: where the position was was not as important as the fact that the team had several elite ones, and few to no really bad ones.

The conclusion I draw from this is that there is no one position more valuable than others, inherently. There may be positions where it is more rare to find an elite player, and I would argue a good justification for why they're paid more. You may find positions that handle the ball more or have more tasks. But I would argue that's not directly related to "responsibility for wins."

Wins and losses, and subsequently importance, IMO, is equally disbursed among every man who steps on that field.

ST. LOUIS — ESPN’s Ron Jaworski rated the Rams’ Sam Bradford as the 24th-best starting quarterback going into the 2014 season.
“Bradford remains a talented passer with excellent arm strength,” Jaworski said during ESPN’s SportsCenter segment. “He can make every throw with velocity, tough and accuracy.”

“Bradford is primarily a pocket quarterback,” Jaworski continued. “When he’s well-protected and comfortable in the pocket, he can be a high-level passer. He has shown flashes of that in his four-year career.”

The No. 1 pick in the 2010 NFL Draft out of the University of Oklahoma, Bradford put up good numbers in his seven starts in 2013 before suffering a season-ending knee injury. He completed 60.7 percent of his passes, with 14 touchdowns and four interceptions, and a passer rating of 90.9.

“Bradford’s struggles have often resulted from his unrefined feel for pocket movement,” Jaworski said. “There are times he seems anchored in the pocket, unable to move and reset.

“Third down has also been a problem for Bradford. In 2013, in his seven starts before an ACL tear ended his season, he completed less than 50 percent of his passes. He must improve on that critical down to become a more consistent quarterback.”

Bradford completed 68 percent of his passes on first down in 2013, then 62.4 percent on second down and 49.3 percent on third down. In his four-year career Bradford has completed 51.9 percent of his passes on third down.

No. 23 on Jaws’ list was Ryan Tannehill of the Miami Dolphins.

Click to expand...

"Stats are like a lamppost, they can illuminate or they can hold you up"! Not my quote but it seems to apply here!

The 5 QBs PF used to demonstrate his point led their teams to a combined 68-12 record with 3 Super Bowl appearances in those 5 years.

Click to expand...

I would hope so, they were the five best years guys have had at the position (IMO) ever!

But that still doesn't clarify for me why if it's the most important position why these five all time great years from players who man the most important position on the field don't have any rings to show for those efforts as a result of those years.

I'm likely belaboring what is a semantic point, and in a fashion that might be interpreted as churlish, I apologize because I've always enjoyed your posts here. But it's an "important" word for me in this context. I simply can't agree with the mantra.

I would hope so, they were the five best years guys have had at the position (IMO) ever!

But that still doesn't clarify for me why if it's the most important position why these five all time great years from players who man the most important position on the field don't have any rings to show for those efforts as a result of those years.

I'm likely belaboring what is a semantic point, and in a fashion that might be interpreted as churlish, I apologize because I've always enjoyed your posts here. But it's an "important" word for me in this context. I simply can't agree with the mantra.

Click to expand...

I don't mind whether you think 1 position is more important or not. What I don't like is how you seem to be cherry-picking facts to support your case. If you want to use QBs by statistical performance then go ahead, but please make it clear how you get the statistics you're going to use. If you're using season highest passer ratings ever, (and I don't know what else would be fair), then the 5 QB seasons you listed are in the top 16 all-time, (Marino was the lowest at #16). 2 of those top 16 QB performances are from the early days of the NFL, (1947 and 1960), and I don't see any point in trying to use those stats because the game was so different. All of the other 14 are from 1984 or later. Of those 14 QB performances 4 won Super Bowls, 4 lost in Super Bowls, and 5 of the other 6 reached the playoffs. The exception was McCown of the Bears last year). That would tend to support the argument of QBs being more important rather than disproving it.
I don't see how you could get top 14 or 16 season performances for each of the other positions to make a comparative study but I can't imagine the top 14 or 16 LBs or DEs coming close to that record. From the top of my head Johnson would have 2 of the top WR performances yet the Lions missed the playoff in both years.
However, looking at the best of the best is moving away from your original premise that no 1 position in the NFL is more important than the rest. I would suggest that rule changes over the last 32 or so years have made some positions, (such as QB), more important whilst reducing the importance of other positions, (such as RB). For your premise to hold you would have to disagree with that or take the view that positions weren't equally important at some point in the past but have become so now. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

I don't mind whether you think 1 position is more important or not. What I don't like is how you seem to be cherry-picking facts to support your case. If you want to use QBs by statistical performance then go ahead, but please make it clear how you get the statistics you're going to use. If you're using season highest passer ratings ever, (and I don't know what else would be fair), then the 5 QB seasons you listed are in the top 16 all-time, (Marino was the lowest at #16). 2 of those top 16 QB performances are from the early days of the NFL, (1947 and 1960), and I don't see any point in trying to use those stats because the game was so different. All of the other 14 are from 1984 or later. Of those 14 QB performances 4 won Super Bowls, 4 lost in Super Bowls, and 5 of the other 6 reached the playoffs. The exception was McCown of the Bears last year). That would tend to support the argument of QBs being more important rather than disproving it.
I don't see how you could get top 14 or 16 season performances for each of the other positions to make a comparative study but I can't imagine the top 14 or 16 LBs or DEs coming close to that record. From the top of my head Johnson would have 2 of the top WR performances yet the Lions missed the playoff in both years.
However, looking at the best of the best is moving away from your original premise that no 1 position in the NFL is more important than the rest. I would suggest that rule changes over the last 32 or so years have made some positions, (such as QB), more important whilst reducing the importance of other positions, (such as RB). For your premise to hold you would have to disagree with that or take the view that positions weren't equally important at some point in the past but have become so now. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

"Cherry picking?" I suppose you could look at it that way. I was just going off of record breaking passing seasons. I hadn't heard too many people refer to Marino's '84 season as "the 16th best season by QB rating" most folks I encounter just remember it as the year he broke the TD and yardage records. I'm sorry you didn't like my examples, I'll try to do better next time.

I don't agree that rule changes effect positional importance, this is more of an idea based on the fundamental construct of the game. I'm just attempting to use examples to illustrate an intangible principle about the sport that I believe. It's hard to demonstrate exactly.

I think some folks may be able to do that better than I can. But I know there are some old ball coaches out there who don't think "a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" is just euphemism or feel-goodery. They feel it's true, as I do.

This is "point on"...Jaworski is a fair analyst of QBs. I like the point he makes too because a good QBs confidence can be ruined in a system that doesn't suit his attributes. We've seen QBs go down the drain because they were not in a system suited to what they do best.

Click to expand...

I disagree that Jaws is a good analyst of QBs. I read his gushing and glowing reports on Kaepernick and it soured me on him. Not because Kaep is a Niner but because the Guy cannot even read the entire field. It kind of shows lack of mental acumen when QBing. Yet Jaws labelled him as possibly the best QB to ever play the game.

Out of the last 20 years, I see 3-5 guys who weren't obviously pro-bowl caliber and Eli's a debatable example. So, Dilfer and Brad Johnson rode their way to a title but everyone else had a pro-bowl/HOF level QB that either helped them get to and/or win the big game.

Click to expand...

I never said it didn't help, just that it wasn't necessary. With the exception of us in 99, those SB winners didn't control the line of scrimmage? I'm not minimizing the QB position, I'm simply responding to people who overrate the position.
Also, I realize this is nitpicking, but Wilson made it because of his defense. I don't see how a guy who is 32nd in attempts makes the Pro Bowl.

Not to say those positions don't have value but look at Ogden in Baltimore. Sure, they won it all because of their defense but they spent years trying to find a suitable QB. Or Jones in Seattle. They had Hasslebeck who was alright but they also spent a long while trying to find the right guy at QB while they had elite LT play. If one has to make a choice, I think it has to be QB over LT.

I never said it didn't help, just that it wasn't necessary. With the exception of us in 99, those SB winners didn't control the line of scrimmage? I'm not minimizing the QB position, I'm simply responding to people who overrate the position.
Also, I realize this is nitpicking, but Wilson made it because of his defense. I don't see how a guy who is 32nd in attempts makes the Pro Bowl.

Click to expand...

Teams with leads in the 2nd half generally run the ball if they can run it effectively. The Broncos led the league in points differential but they didn't have an effective ground game. The Seahawks, 49ers, and Panthers were 2nd, 3rd, and =4th in points differential. All 3 teams were able to run the ball effectively. It shouldn't be a surprise to see them 32nd, 31st, and 30th in pass attempts.

qb is easily the most important position on the team. That's why teams pay the good ones the most by far. that's why teams that have good ones are usually good and teams that don't have good ones are usually awful and are always looking for one.

Teams with leads in the 2nd half generally run the ball if they can run it effectively. The Broncos led the league in points differential but they didn't have an effective ground game. The Seahawks, 49ers, and Panthers were 2nd, 3rd, and =4th in points differential. All 3 teams were able to run the ball effectively. It shouldn't be a surprise to see them 32nd, 31st, and 30th in pass attempts.

Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. Teams that control the line of scrimmage win games. Do that and an elite QB is not required. Good to have, not required.
One could argue that an elite QB salary actually forces you to win with a weaker team, long term.

I don't disagree with a lot of what he says. I think the difference is that if the coaches didn't think he had the ability to be better, they wouldn't keep him around. Or maybe they would because of the contract, but I doubt they'd be as openly supportive of him. I look at it like this: Sam has another year to really prove his worth. IF he does that (I think he will) great. If not, whoever they draft to replace him is going to be put into a 1000% times better situation because he will have a good team around him. They took Bradford when they had nothing and threw him to the wolves, hoping marginal talent would develop around him or that they could buy overpriced free agents on the line to protect him. It didn't work. To the other point about Sam's 3rd down work, let's revisit that after this year. I think the offense is going to be improved enough that the 3rd down attempts are going to be shorter yardage situations, which should increase the efficiency.

Come on @RamzFanz or @-X- , or anyone else who is interested, use those photoshop/video skills you guys have and put together a Mt. Rush More "logo" with our DL faces. Then maybe it could be gotten into Mr. Demoff's hands for use this season!

Out of the last 20 years, I see 3-5 guys who weren't obviously pro-bowl caliber and Eli's a debatable example. So, Dilfer and Brad Johnson rode their way to a title but everyone else had a pro-bowl/HOF level QB that either helped them get to and/or win the big game.

Click to expand...

Yes, and why this discussion is always "SB winner" is somethinjg I don't understand.......what about playoff teams or teams that make it to the divisional round? Regardless of how you slice it if you don't have a top tier QB the odds of getting deep into the playoffs, into the SB or winning the SB go WAY down.

The NFC championship game had, and the two best teams in the NFL have, QBs who are unaware that teams have more than two options to throw to. It's better to be healthy and deep in the lines than have an elite QB IMO.

As far as one single position goes, it's hard to see how any other position is more important than QB on a football team. Now, is a good QB more valuable than an entire good defense? No. But what single position would you take over a good QB?

Click to expand...

Quarterback is the most important position. End of story. So I would take a great QB. But the Ram's shortest path to a great offensive is a fantastic offensive coordinator.